A disciplinary procedure is the formal process an employer can use to deal with alleged employee misconduct.
The purpose is not to prove an allegation as quickly as possible. It is to establish the relevant facts, give the employee a proper opportunity to respond and reach a decision that is fair, reasonable and capable of being explained.
If you are dealing with a live employee issue and need practical help managing the process, our disciplinary support for employers service can help.
The current Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures sets out the minimum principles employers should follow. Employment tribunals take the Code into account in relevant cases, and an unreasonable failure to comply with it can result in an award being increased or reduced by up to 25%.
An allegation is not a finding. Employers should approach the process with an open mind and avoid deciding the outcome before the evidence and the employee’s explanation have been considered.
When should an employer use a disciplinary procedure?
Formal disciplinary action will normally be appropriate where an employer has a genuine concern about an employee’s conduct and the issue is too serious to deal with informally, or an earlier informal approach has not resolved it.
Examples might include repeated breaches of workplace rules, insubordination, unauthorised absence, bullying, harassment or other inappropriate conduct.
Minor issues can often be addressed informally first. A private conversation, clear explanation of the required standard and an agreed improvement may resolve the problem without formal proceedings.
Serious misconduct or suspected gross misconduct is more likely to justify moving directly into a formal process.
Employers should also distinguish misconduct from capability. Misconduct concerns an employee’s behaviour. Capability concerns their ability to perform their job. Poor performance may be better managed through a separate capability or performance procedure, although the underlying principles of fairness in the Acas Code remain relevant.
Step 1 — Establish the allegation and consider the immediate position
Start by identifying what is actually alleged.
Avoid vague descriptions such as “inappropriate behaviour” where more detail is available. Establish what is said to have happened, when it happened, who was involved and which workplace rule, standard or expectation may have been breached.
At this stage, the employer is not deciding whether the allegation is true.
Consider whether any immediate action is necessary while the matter is investigated. This might include protecting evidence, separating individuals, restricting access to particular systems or addressing an immediate safety or commercial risk.
Should the employee be suspended?
Suspension should not be automatic simply because an allegation is serious or described as gross misconduct.
Acas recommends considering the particular circumstances and alternatives first. Those alternatives might include temporarily changing duties, work location, shifts, reporting arrangements or access to particular systems.
Suspension may be reasonable where it is genuinely needed to protect the investigation, the business, other employees or the employee themselves. If used, it should not be presented as disciplinary action or as evidence that the employer has already reached a conclusion.
Keep any suspension under review and avoid allowing it to continue simply because the process has stalled.
Step 2 — Carry out an appropriate investigation
An employer should investigate sufficiently to establish the relevant facts before deciding whether formal disciplinary action should continue.
The scale of the investigation should reflect the issue.
A straightforward and largely undisputed incident might require relatively limited fact-finding. A serious allegation with conflicting accounts, multiple witnesses or potential dismissal consequences may require considerably more work.
The investigator should approach the evidence objectively. Their role is to establish what can reasonably be found out, not to build a case designed to prove the employee guilty. Acas recommends gathering evidence from both sides and obtaining as much information as is reasonable in the circumstances.
Evidence might include:
- emails, messages or documents;
- CCTV or system records where lawfully available;
- policies and procedures;
- witness evidence;
- relevant records;
- an investigation meeting with the employee.
Where witnesses are interviewed, accurate notes or statements should normally be taken. If formal disciplinary action follows, relevant written evidence will ordinarily need to be disclosed to the employee so they have a fair opportunity to respond.
Where practicable, the person conducting the investigation should be different from the person who later chairs the disciplinary hearing. This is particularly important where the facts are disputed or the potential consequences are serious.
There is no general statutory right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting, although an employer’s own procedure may provide one and there may be circumstances in which allowing a companion is sensible.
Step 3 — Decide whether there is a disciplinary case to answer
Once the investigation is complete, the employer should consider whether there is a sufficient basis for moving to a formal disciplinary hearing.
This is not the point at which the employee is found guilty.
The question is whether there is an issue which should properly be considered at a disciplinary hearing.
The investigation may show that there is no case to answer. If so, the process should end and the employee should be told that no further disciplinary action will be taken.
Alternatively, the evidence may indicate that an informal response is sufficient rather than formal disciplinary action.
Where the matter cannot reasonably be resolved informally and there is a disciplinary case to answer, the employer can move to a formal hearing.
Step 4 — Invite the employee to a disciplinary hearing
The invitation should be in writing and give the employee enough information and time to prepare properly.
It should normally explain:
- the allegation being considered;
- the relevant evidence;
- the date, time and location of the hearing;
- the employee’s right to be accompanied;
- the possible disciplinary outcomes.
Where dismissal is a possible outcome, the invitation should say so. An employee should not arrive at a hearing believing that only a warning is being considered if dismissal is actually on the table.
Relevant investigation evidence should normally be provided in sufficient time for the employee to consider it before the hearing.
Step 5 — Conduct the disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing gives the employee the opportunity to understand the case against them and respond before a decision is made.
The person chairing the hearing should explain the allegation and relevant evidence, then allow the employee to give their account, challenge relevant evidence, provide their own evidence and raise factors they believe should be taken into consideration.
Where an employer wants an experienced HR professional to chair or participate directly in the hearing, Harrington Raine also provides HR Consultancy & Meeting Support.
Questions should be used to establish the position rather than simply confirm a conclusion already reached.
The employee has a statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing that could result in a formal warning or other disciplinary action. The permitted companion is generally a fellow worker, a trade union representative or an employed trade union official.
The companion can put and sum up the employee’s case, respond to points made at the hearing and confer with the employee. They do not have a statutory right to answer questions on the employee’s behalf.
If the employee’s chosen companion cannot attend, the statutory rules can require the hearing to be postponed to a reasonable alternative time proposed by the employee within five working days of the original date. Depending on the circumstances, particularly where dismissal is possible, a longer reasonable postponement may sometimes be appropriate.
After the hearing, the decision-maker should take time to consider the matter rather than announcing a predetermined outcome.
Step 6 — Decide the disciplinary outcome
The decision should be based on the evidence, the employee’s explanation and all relevant circumstances.
Employers should consider what is fair and reasonable, their disciplinary rules, the seriousness of the misconduct, any relevant live warnings, mitigation and how genuinely comparable cases have previously been dealt with.
Consistency matters, but it does not mean two apparently similar cases must automatically produce the same outcome. Different circumstances can justify different decisions.
Possible outcomes can include no further action, an informal response, a first written warning, a final written warning, another contractual disciplinary sanction where permitted, or dismissal.
A first written warning will often be appropriate for confirmed misconduct which justifies formal action but is not sufficiently serious to warrant a final warning.
More serious misconduct can justify moving directly to a final written warning. A warning should make clear what the problem was, what standard is expected, how long the warning remains active and what may happen if further misconduct occurs.
Where dismissal is being considered, the decision should only be made by someone with appropriate authority. Employers facing a potentially contentious termination may also want specific dismissal advice for employers before reaching the final decision.
Where dismissal is being considered, the decision should only be made by someone with appropriate authority.
The outcome should be confirmed in writing as soon as reasonably possible and should explain the decision and the employee’s right of appeal.
Step 7 — Provide an appeal
Employees should be given an opportunity to appeal a formal disciplinary outcome.
An appeal is not simply an administrative final step. It gives the employer an opportunity to review whether the procedure and decision were fair, consider new evidence where appropriate and correct a decision if necessary.
Where possible, the appeal should be heard by someone who was not involved in reaching the original outcome and who has authority to make the final decision.
The employee has a statutory right to be accompanied at the appeal hearing.
The appeal outcome should then be confirmed in writing without unreasonable delay.
Gross misconduct and disciplinary procedure
Gross misconduct is conduct sufficiently serious that dismissal without notice may potentially be justified.
Examples can include fraud, physical violence, gross negligence or serious insubordination, although what amounts to gross misconduct will depend on the circumstances and the employer’s disciplinary rules.
The important point is that gross misconduct does not mean automatic dismissal.
An employer should still investigate the allegation, put the case to the employee, hold an appropriate disciplinary hearing, consider the employee’s explanation and reach a reasoned decision.
If gross misconduct is established following a fair process and summary dismissal is reasonable in the circumstances, the employee may be dismissed without notice or notice pay.
Describing conduct as “gross misconduct” at the start of the process should therefore mean that gross misconduct is a possible allegation or consequence — not that the decision has already been made.
Complications during a disciplinary process
Not every disciplinary follows a neat sequence. Employers may need to adapt the process where other issues arise.
The employee raises a grievance
An employee may raise a grievance during disciplinary proceedings, including a complaint about the manager involved, the investigation or the motivation behind the disciplinary action.
Where the grievance is substantial or creates a conflict within the existing process, specialist Grievance Support may be appropriate.
This does not automatically mean the disciplinary process must stop.
The current Acas Code says the disciplinary process may be temporarily suspended while the grievance is dealt with. Where the two issues are related, it may instead be appropriate to deal with them concurrently.
The right approach depends on what the grievance is about and whether continuing the disciplinary process would prevent the grievance from being considered fairly.
The employee is absent or refuses to attend
An employee being absent, including because of sickness, does not necessarily bring the disciplinary process to an indefinite halt.
The employer should normally contact the employee, understand why they cannot attend and consider rearranging the meeting or making reasonable alternative arrangements.
This might include another location, remote attendance or other appropriate adjustments.
If the employee remains unwilling or unable to participate, the employer should consider the reason, the seriousness of the matter, available medical information where appropriate, previous attempts to arrange attendance and whether a fair decision can be made on the evidence available.
The Acas Code recognises that where an employee is persistently unable or unwilling to attend without good cause, an employer may ultimately need to make a decision on the evidence available.
The key is being able to show that a reasonable opportunity to participate was genuinely provided.
What disciplinary records should an employer keep?
Employers should keep an appropriate written record of disciplinary cases, including cases that end with no formal action.
Depending on the case, this could include the original allegation, investigation material, meeting notes, correspondence, evidence considered, the outcome and any appeal.
Records should be accurate and confidential and handled in accordance with data protection requirements. Acas advises that disciplinary records should only be retained for as long as necessary.
Good records are particularly important if the decision is later challenged or the employer needs to establish what happened in an earlier, genuinely comparable case.
Common disciplinary procedure mistakes
Deciding the outcome before investigating
Starting from the position that the employee must be guilty undermines the purpose of the process. An investigation should test the allegation, not simply gather evidence supporting it.
Treating suspension as automatic
Serious allegations do not automatically require suspension. Consider the actual risk and whether a less disruptive alternative will work.
Combining investigation and decision-making unnecessarily
In smaller organisations this may sometimes be unavoidable. But where resources allow, separating the investigation, hearing and appeal stages can materially improve objectivity.
Giving the employee a vague allegation
An employee cannot respond properly if they do not understand the conduct being alleged or its possible consequences.
Withholding relevant evidence
The employee should normally see the evidence on which the employer intends to rely in sufficient time to respond to it.
Using consistency mechanically
Past cases are relevant, but employers should compare the actual circumstances rather than assume every apparently similar incident deserves the same sanction.
Assuming short service removes the need for care
As at 8 September 2026, the ordinary qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection is generally two years. However, some automatically unfair dismissal protections do not require that qualifying period, and discrimination claims are separate.
In addition, the Employment Rights Act 2025 has already legislated to reduce the ordinary unfair-dismissal qualifying period to six months for dismissals from 1 January 2027.
A deliberately poor process should therefore not become the default simply because an employee currently has relatively short service.
Failing to offer an appeal
An appeal is a core part of the Acas disciplinary framework and can provide an important opportunity to correct a procedural or decision-making problem before it develops further.
Current Acas Code position — September 2026
At the time this guide was last reviewed, the 2015 Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures remains the current statutory Code.
Acas published a proposed replacement Code for consultation on 30 July 2026. That consultation remains open until 23 September 2026. The proposed Code is a draft and is not yet the Code employers are required to follow.
Employers should therefore continue to work from the existing Code and current Acas guidance unless and until a replacement is formally approved and brought into force.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a disciplinary procedure take?
There is no single fixed timetable that applies to every disciplinary case.
The Acas Code expects employers and employees to deal with issues promptly and without unreasonable delay. At the same time, the investigation must be sufficient and the employee must have reasonable time to prepare for the hearing.
A simple case might therefore be concluded relatively quickly, while a serious allegation involving several witnesses may reasonably take longer.
Can the same person investigate and chair the disciplinary hearing?
Potentially, particularly in a small organisation where there are limited managers available.
However, the Acas Code says that in misconduct cases different people should carry out the investigation and disciplinary hearing where practicable. Employers should create as much separation and impartiality as their resources reasonably allow.
Using an external HR professional can sometimes help an employer structure or chair a process, but external involvement does not automatically make a process fair or independent. The quality of the investigation, the evidence, the hearing and the eventual decision still matter.
Can an employee be disciplined for something they did outside work?
Sometimes.
The employer should consider the nature and seriousness of the conduct and whether there is a genuine connection with the employee’s work or the employer’s legitimate business interests.
Acas gives the example of conduct at a work-related social event which damages the organisation’s reputation. Employers should investigate the actual impact rather than assume that anything happening outside normal working hours automatically becomes a disciplinary matter.
You can find further practical guidance in our HR & Employment Law Resources centre.